Step 2: Map It¶
Documenting your understanding of the problem space in a visual way is an impactful way of capturing your understanding and can be a good way of sharing it with others. A Situation Model, Systems Map, or Journey Map are all great tools. The Situation Model focuses on relationships between human causes (drivers) of threats to your vision (conservation targets); whereas the Systems Map describes feedback loops between relevant elements of the system. Journey Maps capture the chain of behaviors required to solve a problem or do a job.
If you can, start by defining the scope of the system that you will be exploring, such as geographic boundaries or levels (e.g., federal vs. state gov’t). This will help focus your search to just that area of the problem space in which you have a manageable interest. Alternatively, use a framing question to focus your interrogation of the system.
Developing these maps typically requires formative research and immersion in the problem space. Start by listing the factors (i.e., threats, drivers and enabling conditions) that you know and building out the map using a breadth-first search of the problem space. Add to the map anything that seems relevant, but don’t spend too much time understanding how. Group items using affinity mapping until the relationships become clear.
Next, focus on what appear to be the most important elements with an in-depth search. Ask an expert: experts can quickly help parse what is important and what is not, but be aware of the bias any expert brings. When interviewing experts, research enough that they don’t feel obligated to spend all of their time educating you on the basics—you want them to really focus on the nuance that they have come to understand by becoming an expert. Write down your findings and document your sources in brief narrative format; don’t waste time developing a long report.
Finally, connect the elements based on their relationships. Identify central nodes, leverage points, etc. Explore the feedback loops present between factors, including both positive (reinforcing) and negative (balancing) loops.
The map you create can be a good communication tool, but it is often only helpful to those who created it. To really communicate your understanding, you must tell a story for the relevant relationships you have identified. In a Situation Model, describe the key pathways from drivers to threats and impacts on targets. In a Systems Map, describe the major balancing and reinforcing feedback loops. Transformative Scenario Planning relies almost entirely on story-telling to shape understanding. If you can tell a convincing story about what is causing the problem, you will be better able to test and communicate that understanding.
- See Thinking in Systems by Donella Meadows, Chapter 5 for a discussion on the challenges of appropriately defining scope.
- See CMP-Open Standards v3.0 section 1B Define Scope, Vision, and Conservation Targets for a general discussion of scope. Scopes are both “place-based” and “thematic-based”.See CMP-Open Standards v3.0 section 1C-1D for more on Situation Models.
- See publication Building Ecosystem Services Conceptual Models (Olander et al) for helpful guidance.
- See Systems Practice by Omidyar Group, section Gaining Clarity.
- Context Mapping (Historical, Environmental, Societal/Cultural, Technological, Political)
Systems Maps or Conceptual Models?¶
One drawback of simple causal conceptual models typically depicted by Open Standards frameworks is that they imply single and unidirectional causalities between specific pressures and ecosystem conditions (Schwartz et al 2012; Niemeijer and de Groot 2008; Smeets and Weterings 1999). In reality, a specific pressure may affect multiple states and a specific state may be affected by multiple pressures. Instead of simple causal chain frameworks, Niemeijer and de Groot (2008) proposed that complex systems are better represented by causal networks, in which multiple causal chains interact and interconnect.